Microinclusive teaching in family science courses

• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Author: Jacki Fitzpatrick
• Date: 01 December 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12794

RESEARCH

Microinclusive teaching in family science courses

Jacki Fitzpatrick

Department of Human Development &

Family Science, Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, TX

Correspondence

Jacki Fitzpatrick, Department of Human

Development & Family Science, MS 1230,

507 College of Human Sciences, Texas Tech

University, Lubbock, TX, USA.

Email: Jacki.Fitzpatrick@ttu.edu

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of

microaggressive (MA) and microinclusive (MI) issues in

college teaching. In MA communications, individuals/

groups are treated as invisible or comparatively less desir-

able. MA can have a detrimental impact on its targets

(to whom comments or behaviors are directed) as well as

bystanders who witness the aggression. As part of ethics in

family scholarship, it is worthwhile for faculty to consider

MA and learn about more prosocial/supportive options,

such as MI. This article provides a brief overview of MA,

MI teaching, ethical approaches to MA/MI guidance, and

MI teaching examples in one family science course. These

issues are also relevant to coursework in other HDFS

department programs or tracks (e.g., developmental,

policy and practice, therapy, community education).

KEYWORDS

cultural diversity,family life education, pedagogicaland curriculum issues

The article provides a summary of microaggressive (MA) and microinclusive (MI) issues in college

teaching. In MA communications, individuals/groups are treated as invisible, unequal, or undesirable

(Fleras, 2016; Offermann et al., 2014). Compared with moderate-macroaggressions, MA is less dan-

gerous, intense, or severe. However, MA can still have a detrimental impact on its targets (to whom

comments or behaviors are directed) as well as bystanders (Burleigh & Wilson, 2021; Fleras, 2016).

Individuals, including instructors, can engage in MA (Abdelaziz et al., 2021) with little awareness or ill

intent. As part of ethics in family scholarship, faculty should consider MA and learn about counterac-

tive options such as MI. This article provides a brief overview of (a) MA, (b) MI teaching, (c) ethical

approaches to MA/MI guidance, and (d) MI teaching examples in one family science course.

WHAT IS MICROAGGRESSION?

MA has been addressed since the late 1970s. In a thematic analysis of TV commercials, Pierce

et al. (1978) described MA as derogatory or disparaging messages. The message elements

Please note that this email address is case-specific. It requires a capital “J”and capital “F”; all other letters must be lower-case.

Received: 5 June 2022Revised: 3 October 2022Accepted: 11 October 2022

DOI: 10.1111/fare.12794

© 2022 National Council on Family Relations.

2084 Family Relations. 2022;71:2084–2103.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fare

(verbal, nonverbal), although subtle, could have a substantive impact on individuals’views of

self and others. Over time, there was a specification of racial MA, which focused on insulting

images, comments, or behaviors directed at people of racial/ethnic minority groups

(Orbe, 2021; Sol

orzano et al. 2000). More specifically, Sue et al. (2007) defined this form of

MA as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities,

whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial

slights and insults to the target person or group”(p. 273). The definition has been expanded to

include other characteristics (Feigt et al., 2022; Hollier et al., 2022; Prieto et al., 2016), such as

age, sex/gender, disability, religion, and physical appearance (as an indicator of group identity

or affiliation).

MA also aligns with dismissive or denigrating communications about diverse families, such

as remarried, adoptive, multiracial, and grandfamilies (grandparents raising grandchildren).

For instance, Baxter et al. (2004) described relational challenges when stepparents are not per-

ceived or treated as “real”parents. Suter and Ballard (2009) reported that adoptive parents are

confronted with inappropriate questions, such as “How much did you pay for her?”(p. 107).

Similarly, Yancura et al. (2016) noted that grandparent caregivers can receive denigrating mes-

sages, such as they would not have to provide care now if they had raised their own children to

be responsible adults.

In family science courses, instructors can reinforce this dismissiveness when they choose to

focus first on traditional (biological, nuclear) families. By direct statement or unintended infer-

ence, teachers can send the message that (a) this is the preferred/normal family and (b) other

structures are comparatively deficient. In prior decades, it was true that there were constraints

that initially made it difficult to create socially accepted families outside the bounds of the tradi-

tional structure. For example, children could only be created via heterosexual intercourse,

gay/lesbian couples were not permitted to marry, and unmarried adults were not permitted to

adopt children. However, these constraints have been drastically reduced or eliminated in the

21st century. In this context, it is not necessary to select biological-nuclear families as the first

topic. Indeed, I teach family structures in the following order: (a) childfree/childless, (b) single

parent, (c) divorced, (d) remarried, (e) biological (traditional), (f) extended (including

grandfamilies), (g) gay or lesbian parent, and (h) adoptive.

In reference to the college classroom, instructors can engage in MA when they try to mini-

mize or normalize distressing information. For example, Su

arez-Orozco et al. (2015) provided

the following observation and analysis of a teacher–student interaction:

The White instructor started to speak about Thomas Jefferson and his relationship

with his slave Sally Hemings. A Black male student asked, “He raped her?”The

instructor disagreed, saying, “He had three or four children with her.”The student

then asked, “Oh, so he had a relationship with her?”The instructor replied, “He

was an honorable guy. He bought her a sandwich.”[The instructor] grinned, evok-

ing what seemed to be uncomfortable laughter from the students in the class. In this

case, the instructor conjured an example from history of an exploited Black slave

woman. When a Black student suggested the possibility of abuse, the instructor

quickly dismissed the likelihood by (1) suggesting that Jefferson was “honorable,”

(2) maintaining that it does not follow that additional children would be born after

a rape, and (3) making light of the matter by equating the provision of a “sand-

wich”with some kind of courtship. (p. 157)

It is possible that this teacher was speaking cavalierly about serious issues in an effort to reduce

classroom tension. However, it does not mean that students shared the instructor’s sense of

humor or relief. The act of providing diversionary responses to the student’s question disre-

spects the deep ramifications of human ownership (slavery).

MICROINCLUSIVE TEACHING2085